OHINEMURI.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2161, 7 December 1875, Page 2

OHINEMURI.

(fbom ova. owns coebespokdbitt.) WABDE]!rs"cOUBT. '• Mackattowhv • r\\ ThUBSDAY, DeOXXBEB £ (Before W. Fraier, Esq.. Warden). ;' BIOBDAN V. SCHMIDT, DANIELS AND ■ " OTHEBi. Mr Macdonald tor plaintiff; «nd Mr Tyler for defendants'. ' " -■ This was an action trough* bf Biordift* 1 to obtain possession of shares in the Weicome Amalgamated,' on the groundiof L°t™ts * °W*d*»te*WP.*ctir^ Mr Macdonald said that he ;wo«ld first S*^ f*' c "«™* Schniat, and asked defendants counsel if he would allow the' ruling of the Court in this case to decide the remainder. t ■ :;■ MrTylersaidthathedidnotthenknow, but if there was no new feature introduced - into the case he might be willing to con. sent to such a course. Before proceeding any further however, Mr Tyfer said he objected to the plaint. ' There was no time ttated as to how long the sham had been unworked, and that it was mojS' sary to specify the time. ' 1 The Warden said that all that was necessary to obtain forfeiture was to prove that the claim had been unworked. He was supported in this opinion by other authorities, viz, Wardens Dowell, led-" dell and Broad. He would allow of no excuse for, the; non-working of any intaresti,"fcnd itficjncluding; Bis ftm§jrkf 1£? said—l am fully deftirmined to pfc't altbfr to the rotten system which prevails here. It has become a by-word, and -it * reproach to the, honest and .industrious miners among you. I will doiny utmost to introduce a new era in minlnk in this , district. . .

All witnesiei in the case wen now orderefd out of Court .? *" : •; / ;?• J. Eiordan, examined by Mr Maedooald, deposed—l atara miner, «n&:tfcl>6ldtr of sereral miners' rights, tarn the plaintiff in this action, and des*r toob. tain possession of shares in the^rvetefaie Amalgamated claims ' ! .:. (»■ -\-i.h • Crosi-examined by Mr Tyjef**l am* minerj and worked in myeU^K.itp >'to? last week. I was working i#«V other claim at the time I laid this^Waiht. I hare four miners' rights, and <ftfifrrwhich Ido not now produce. I, hate lodged six plaints. I paid for the plaidta myself The monty wftH which I j^tbem was mine. Learned it, (Thef£G6wt ruled that such questions were inaimitsable.) „ I am seeking these shares for myself. None of thesesharesarefo#>l|pGldbgb»'& ■There has not been any, preview arrangement for the disposal of '-the shares.' ; McCloughen has not guaranteed counsel's fees. i i • \ r , . M.' Mungoran, examined by Mr Macdoaald, deposed—l an) a miner and a registered shareholder 1 n the WeVi come Amalgamated. This $•. Jhe claim in respect to which action is frought by Riordan. I hare been a shireholdnr in" the claim from the first; 40 also, has Schimdt. There are 13 registered shares m the claim. Three of theie belong to Schmidt. ■ • " B

A. J. Allom, -Mining Registrar, was sworn, and produced the register of the Welcome Amalgamated, frim which he read the names of the ..shareholders. Frederick Schmidt was found to hare three shares in the amalgamated claim It was registered on' t&e 2&tn October.' ~ The original Welcome was registered on the sth October. I find that more than one of Schmidt's-shares hare been trans* . i ferred—one half share has been assigned to M.,O'Hoglen, oni full share to Dunke, a half share to P. A. Domelly, and another half to J. Brown. He now only possesses' a half share. {? J. Home, Clerk St Warden's Court, deposed—l remember;i4th Norember last —it was Court day. yPltints.;were laid" shortly after the Court was dosed. "'-' M.' Mungoran -was\ again -plated ineridence, and to questions put "mH Mr, 1 Macdonald he said. Tke work done in the claim was tunnelling and trenching. We did not find the reef.l I know tome* ; thing about mining. I\thinkw» commenced work some.time ty October.. £ do. the blacksmithing part of the business. We cut fresh trenches befere the amalgamation. '■ Since then the daim has 1 been worked by Donnelly. I sayhow many men it takes to work a drirei. I know Tucker. I don't know when the praint against him was- taken out. Tucker was working in the claim. \ I don't know who for. Mattocks also was working there. t . j, P. Foley, deposed—l am a shareholder * in the Welcome Amalgamated. I to4k as much part in the work as any other shareholder. We had to trench for a long time before we got the reef. We put in .. sereral prospecting tunnels: I was work* ing in one of them. It was,timbered for about 30 feet. Between the date of amalgamation and the 4th November we were driving a main tunnel and putting in a lower drive. Tucker, Heitman and 1 were working on one shift. Dunke, Daniels and O'Neill were on another. Altogether there were thirteen men at work in the mine. I nerer kept tally of the work.

Frederick Scjhmidt, defendant in this , case, deposed—l was registered for three shares in the Welcome Amalgamated. , I / hold one share in trust for Dunke. From ' the date of amalgamation I always worked ; my interest. I had the remainine share ;; represented by Mattocks. I hare paid > him up to date. He gave me no receipt. I have made an entry of what I paid in . my account book. 2he book is at Waite* ' kauri. Dunke's share was represented by Tucker. * Dunke <paid him hit wages.'. Tucker worked till lie fell ill. I can't tell the precise date of his illness. I went • dowa to Grahamstown for tools, and to ' transact some' other business in connec» tion with the claim. I got. bellows, gad> '. and hammers. My purchase came to! 35s in all. I think I;got them from!' Stone Bros. I can't remember tow long I iras away. During my absence Philip - O'Conner represented my jnteresi. I ' hare paid him his wages. I gave Wood • £3' to give to h.im. I still owe him for wafces.. ...

Cross-examined by Mr Tyler-rl huh*'' two shares-before and one more "after the * analgamation. I was ft arahams-'" town between the 22nd Sept.' and £th ' Nor. ',„.'". "" r' On the Court disapproving of tWcon*' tradictory nature of witness' evidence, he said he misv^nderstood, the, question, and that he could not remember anything ', about the dates. ,

The witness was cross-examined at" ■ length by Mr Macdonald touching the payments he had made to Mattocks on

account of wages. He stated that he had given Mattocks a P.N. for JBIO and

£2 in cash, in all £12. This was for work done from the 25th Sep. to the 4th Nor. at the rate of £2 10s per week. John Daniels, a shareholder in Ihe Welcome Amalgamated, was examined. His evidence went to show jthat Mattocks and Donnelly wer» workinji*i(or supposed to be) interests in the Fergus as well as in the Welcome Amalgamated. The former represented Mr Power, and the later Mr C. Wallnutt. Henry Mattocks deposed—l know Mrs Josephine Power. I and Mrs Power hare beeq.mates jn.a.share in the Fergus since the 2^'Sept. "! I got 25s per week for working £ share. I worked for Sohmidtat tthe, same time. i - Mrr^Ma'pOT»al4^»*ke3 this to produce from his pocket book the document that Schmidt had given him. It read as follows:—l.O.U., Henry Mat tocks, the sum of £12 10s for 5 weeks' wages* This witness said that he had been; getting ;£3 15s: pvc:"^wot ; jlp;to itor day; and that he wiprked twb^, hojir shifts etery'day. .■■. i: ; .:.- ■>.:,"'"/. ■■' ' -Vv. • ■ .-■' Mr Macdbnald w^s about t<> crossexamine him) whjein the Warden said •** Let him alone; 'V and to the witness "Go »way.",v.,-.-l?./>; v. ■,-■><:,:-'.. > s :':.'>:^sr':. Henry Tucker and Woods were then examined, but nothing fresh was elicited. Jas. Donnelly; deposed.'^ I am; old enough to earn wages. I worked in the FfMMS for Wallnutt as well, as in, the Wjteovite for (Mongovan. I have got part of "my wages- from both: I' wbrked six hour shifts and 1 knocked off wheneVer.l got the chance.^'! '''■./''■ : ; '■"'... ..'■* -■ . Mr Tyler askedjfor'the adjournment o* the Court. 'K'..^'^- :.- w-y^^-i^ The Warden before doing so questioned Schmidt very minutely as toi-his pocket book, its sizeV shaped and thervaluel of the j entries, and told him plainly that he could place very;little credencei.on his eridence. Court acSjo^irniid till follpwiag d*y v « ,

jPb'idat*-;.Decembbb 3.

BIOBDAN-TV. SCHMIDT ANl>' OTHEBS.

This case was resumed from the proceeding day. .before, W..,.Fraseiy ,-..Esq., "Warden^'" ■'■" 'T^' 1 ■ ■, ;.',': \.". '"V K. :.''■"- J. Home, examined by Mr Macdonald, d«poied--I am. Qlerk of the Warden's Office. It is part of my duties to receive plaint*. At the time these plaints were lodged the Register,, showed that Schmidt was the owner of three shares^

Examined by Mir, Tyler—l was sworn yesterday and examined. Thd plaint was laid on the 4th ultimo.Schmidt had transferred some of his shares; one of the transfers was registered at 10.30 a.m., and another at 10.55. The party lodging plaints searched the. register, and then filled in forms provided for the purpose. They were lodged in the afternoon of the 4th, but were not signed till the following day.' ' •,.;.•;■: ..-•-, ' Cross-exammed by Mr Macdonald-rl do not know whether the Eegistryßook produced is the one ; provided for under the Bth clause of the Act. lam not the the registrar. i. A. j. Allom, deposed—l am Mining Begistrar. ■ I produced the register of the Welcome yesterday. -1 now prpduce the book of original entries. Tnis is the book required here by the 87th and 90th clauses of the Act, \ All transactions are first entered in this book and then posted into the register. The transfer to O'Hoglen was registered, at 10.30 and Dunke's at 10 50. I dpn?t. remember being asked by Biordan whether Punke was an original shareholder. , ■• -. . Mr Macdonald »aid ;that he had eluded the case for.plaintiff. --r •■■>■ ■ -Mr Tyler asked the Court if it was necessary-taproceed withthe defence, and asked if the evidence now in its possession was not, sufficient to decide the matter as against the plaintiff; There were no grounds for the forfeiture of his clients' interest, but, if it was required, he would prove:—lst, That the mine was continuously worked within the dates in question, and 2nd, that they worked eight hour shifts, notwithstanding anything stated by Donnelly to the contrary. After discussing the several points,' he aaid he woul& apologise, to the Court on account of the contradictory evidence given ;by v Schmidt, who,, he said, was suffering from the effects of drink. The Warden said that his evidence was altogether unreliable, and he would dismiss it from his recollection.

Schmidt was now sworn, and deposed that they had? always 8-hour shifts, and that Donnelly's evidence was incorrect.

— Heitman was next? called, when the Cout said it was not necessary to go on any further. It had; quite made up its mind what to do. It would-not order forfeiture of the share, but at the s^me time it had determined not to allow costs.

The plaintiffywds nonsuited without costs. ..■ _•. .... ,"■.. ; <■-;')■,:■'■ ,;■•-.,: '■. ■-,•■